Memeorandum

July 14, 2011

As The Kabuki Picks Up...

1. Republicans have clearly found their bad cop; why has no Congressional Dem emerged to pound the table and battle for the left? Is placing Obama in that role shrewd politics, in a casting-against-type sort of way? Maybe - it saves Obama having to explain why, as notional leader of the Democrats, he can't simply command compliance from Pelosi, Reid et al.

2. Is anyone surprised that the talks are seemingly on the verge of collapse? Both sides need to show their respective bases they were ready and willing to fight fight fight for the right (or left). Once that point has been established, the voices of reason will be allowed to prevail. For Republicans, that means Boehner and McConnell; for Dems, Obama right now is both the bad cop and the would-be voice of reason. That is a bit awkward - Obama is very convincing in his peeved and petulant mode, but no onewants to watch that for long.

If I were a House Republican, I would do two things:

First, I protect grandma from Obama by banging out a bill emphasizing that the whole point of the Social Security Trust Fund is to give the Soc Sec Administration statutory room to borrow to make payments.

The debt ceiling is on total government debt, which includes both debt held by the public and Soc Sec trust fund bonds; when trust fund bonds are redeemed to make payments and the Treasury sells notes to the public to raise the cash to make those payment, net debt does not increase and the debt ceiling is not an obstacle. However, as an administrative matter, there seem to be technical timing glitches as to the receipt and investment of payroll taxes, the issuance of new public debt, and the redemption of trust fund bonds. One marvels that the Tax Cheat can't solve this, but the House can clarify the various rules to make sure granny gets paid.

Secondly, I would pass a nearly-clean debt limit increase, merely requiring the President to submit a budget plan that CBO can actually score. Then we can resume this scuffle in three or six months.

BONUS THOUGHT: Experimenting with a debt ceiling drama and possible Treasury default is not exactly small "c" conservative. Yes, there may be ways for a debacle to be avoided, but history does not provide a roadmap here.

The House should pass a bill authorizing $XX of increase in the debt AND $XXXX of cuts in actual spending... and send it to the Senate.

Under this scenario, either the Senate Democrats vote yes... or they're the ones shutting down government, or they pass it and Obama vetoes the bill, making him the one who shut down government.

And if either the Senate Dems or Obama kill it, the House GOP submits pretty much the same bill the very next day, again forcing the Senate Dems and Obama to accept ownership of the shutdown.

I analogize (somewhat) it to the legal doctrine of proximate cause... the last one who can stop the problem but doesn't, is the one who gets the blame. The public won't care about the reasons Obama said no, all they'll get is that he could have kept it from happening... but didn't.

And a bonus: this is so simple, such a straightforward talking point ('Obama is the one shutting down government') that even the usually PR inept GOP ought to be able to stick to the script. Not that they will, but they could.

So, Obama may be presented with a "bipartisan" approach that will doom him to actually proposing cuts, and face three votes between now and next November.

Why would the Dems go along with this though?

This might have something to do with it:

Generic Republican Surges Ahead

Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ — Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the “Republican Party’s candidate for president” than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama’s re-election prospects.

Obama's re-elect numbers are starting to look really bad as this wears on. Dems in the Senate may be looking for a lifeboat right about now.

I like TM's approach, but I would have the House add a provision zeroing out high speed choo choos. Then, if Obama vetoes the bill, Dems can explain why Obama is defunding granny to protect dollars for Thomas the High Speed Tank Engine to Nowhere.

I think government would already have figured out how to funnel money from private SS accounts even more directly into the government's checking account. After all, those are the folks who obviously have money to spare for savings, and they're just sitting on it, when patriots would be investing -- in public works! -- and feeding the poor.

Morris has said that often and been wrong. And wrong on many other things as well.

I really do think the GOP House has many options, including Steve's proposal, for putting the potato on Obama's fork and making it his choice whether or not to shut down the government. And I think they should conclude--as they seem to have done--that he is not negotiating in good faith. Stop negotiating, start legislating.

[I]t gives Obama an immediate increase in the debt ceiling to avoid a default. All he has to do is agree, up front, that increases in the debt ceiling must be accompanied by spending cuts, not tax increases. And he’s got to put his spending cuts in writing—dollar for dollar—for each debt ceiling increase: $700 billion, then $900 billion, and then another $900 billion.

Does anyone remember what the increase Obama initially proposed was? IIRC, he was asking for a lot more than it would take just to avoid default Armageddon. I think it was supposed to be/is a package which would "reduce the deficit" by borrowing and taxing enough to cover the spending he wants to do (sweetened with promissory notes on cuts). For some reason, $4+Trillion springs to mind.

McConnell's plan makes more sense if that's the case. Raise the debt ceiling outright just enough to avoid default. Then Obama gets $2.5 Trillion in incremental hikes and Republicans get $2.5 Trillion in identified cuts (which are clearly negotiable if Obama wants the hike). So the cutting, which Obama has to defend, would kick in early on, (ideally obviating the need to borrow all the way up to the limit which might or might not actually be granted the last time, just before the elections?). Meanwhile, taxes are never even on the table.

Republicans could then get a start on reworking the tax code (& the debt?), etc. (while Obama comes abegging for raises) with reforms which can be implemented in full should they take control of both houses, if their bills presumably get stalled before then.

Am I missing/misconstruing something here? I continue to think this is a Plan C; I'm just not convinced it's the blink that a lot of folks are so upset about. Obama would be insane agree to such a plan -- he'd be betting his presidency either way, so he's just been trying to turn a bug into a feature. The initial reaction from a couple of key Dems, however, suggests that with a tough election coming up, Republicans could, at least conceivably, split a useful number of them off from the President. They may just be waiting for Republicans to mortally shoot themselves in the foot, but the crickets also suggest that they're really nervous about positioning themselves here.

I'd just add that the McConnell plan may not look good to a boatload of conservatives, but it could play extremely well with the public, notwithstanding dismissive hand waving on the right. That fact might also help attract sufficient Dem votes in the Senate for passage. I'm not sure that wouldn't really be better for the country than going for the bill of Republican dreams in the House, which will almost certainly fail in the Senate. I think people (myself included) have been way too quick to assume the latter could be played to political advantage, and slow to justify doing it for that purpose alone.

"Yes, but my sense is they're still cuts in future spending against some fake benchmark, and cuts that may never materialize."

I think that's one thing that the McConnell plan is designed to prevent. The Prez doesn't get his debt ceiling hike unless Congress approves the cuts that he's required to proffer in black & white.

The calculus I haven't done has to do with putting the enabling bills on the Senate/House table, vote counts and veto power/overrides etc. I have the impression that McConnell threw a sweetener into the technicalities of passage somewhere that could come back to bite us, but I maxed out before I got to that part of the equation.

Any proposed cuts from the Dems at this point are meaningless because no baseline has been established to cut from (i.e. no CBO scoreable budget proposal from the Dems). All they are doing right now is a big game of fantasy budget ball.

Taking a break from other activities, so I thought I'd offer a h/t to narciso, whom I called an idiot yesterday. Some of you may think that I spend a lot of time searching out dirt on evangelical Catholic haters, but the truth is quite otherwise. For example, I had a general notion that Rick Perry had some extreme religious ideas, but that was based on "second hand" info that wasn't overly specific. I didn't go searching because I figured it would surface sooner or later.

So, when narciso posted earlier today about Perry's association with Hagee (whom I've heard of) and some Wagner guy I'd never heard of, I thought I'd look a bit deeper. A very quick google came up with this page re Perry's Christian prayer summit in Houston next month: Are Perry and Obama responsible for the religious company they keep?

The reporter makes it clear that this is Perry's event, not some evangelical event that he's coopting. Hagee and Wagner will be there, along with another guy who's otherwise unknown to me: John Benefiel, who says the Statue of Liberty is "a demonic idol." Yikes!

It's all fine and good to make fun of Obama, but it's like in basketball--you can't just throw your gym shoes or jock strap or whatever out on the floor, you've got to bring a game that can win. Are the GOPers really doing that with some of these kooky candidates or near candidates? I'm of the opinion that Obama could end up winning almost by default, incredible as that idea may seem.

I look at the McDonnell offer as an arbitrator in a binding arbitration would. If we take the representations made by the President at their face value, then I would construe the McDonnell proposal as a good faith offer in settlement. I believe that the Muddle (to the extent that they are capable of understanding the basic premise) would see it as such as well. If what I believe is actually true, then McDonnell has trumped the President politically.

As a purely political matter, the offer is a goblet of cyanide with three double barbed treble hooks as sweeteners but the President is placed in the position of having to acknowledge all the porkies he's been telling in order to refuse it.

Ibama secretly wants big cuts. Secretly because he can't admit it to his base. But he needs cuts because otherwise he has no response to endless commercials saying "President Obama raised the debt by $X trillion."

So, my prediction, and I'm usually wrong, is that at the last moment we get a $2.5 trillion increase in the ceiling and the same amount in cuts.

Ibama will tell his base that he was forced to accept the cuts or risk the ruin of the nation. He will at the same time say that he actually wanted $4 trillion in cuts, but evil Republicans, etc. He will run as a fiscal conservative.

Maybee:
I think Tapper is appalled at how unserious Obama is and that he is acting like a petulant child, stamping his feet when he doesn't get his own way.I think everyone trying to lie about Obama walking out and piling on Cantor{paging Harry Reid} are covering for Obama's sorry ass behavior.

Gallop sucks. If they were an honest outfit, they'd poll for a 3-way contest. And, then the stupid party would be in 3rd place!

Can't wait for August. When Sarah Palin says "all good candidates must declare by August." And, I see her, in her ONE NATION bus ... pulling out of her parked spot. And, into traffic! Lots of good will come of this.

See LUN for the Tapper/Carney exchange referenced in MayBee's 5:19 PM post. Carney acknowledges at the end of the exchange that the Administration will agree to something to prevent a default:

"CARNEY: Because we don't have to get there. We're not going to default, Jake. We're not going to default. I think I, in the answer to two previous questions before I got to you, made clear that no one in the room thinks we're going to default and the president and the vice president don't think we're going to default. So it's a hypothetical that we don't even have to entertain."

Carney is filibustering an answer there. In fact Obama did slip up and would default if he can't get his way.
The American people are not on Obama's side as the polls indicate. he won't get any help there. No talks at Camp David Once again Obama only offers non-solutions-as if location will give him a different outcome. That only works in the real estate business.

This seems to have jumped the Big Pond. Is there a bridge across the diminutive Atlantic?

Australia PM open to media review after News scandal

by Amy Coopes
AFP Asian Edition

Jul 14, 2011 11:58 EDT

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Thursday she was "shocked and disgusted" by the News Corporation phone hacking scandal and warned of a possible inquiry into media regulation and ownership.

Australia's Greens party has called for a parliamentary review of the nation's media, in which News Corporation's boss Rupert Murdoch is a dominant player, adding to the pressure on his embattled global empire.

News Limited, Murdoch's Australian operations, said it would "co-operate with any inquiry into media in Australia," but said the scope of any probe would need to be clearly defined.

Want vs. Need, in the Election of 1860, which was far more splintered than the Election of 2012 is going to be, Lincoln was in the upper 30s in terms of popular vote percentage. So there is no need to imagine a candidate winning with 26 percent of the popular vote (see also, for example, the Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace 1968 election, and the GHW Bush/Clinton/Perot 1992 election, in which the winners won over 40 percent of the popular vote notwithstanding strong third party challengers).

Elliott- I think he saw it as a sacrificial lamb. If he didn't sign the bill extending Bush tax rates, he wouldn't have an issue to run on for reelection. And if he doesn't win reelection, the new guy might not raise taxes on the rich.

From the President who exhorted everyone to sacrifice their scared cows:

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

American voters disapprove 56 - 38 percent of the way President Barack Obama is handling the economy, but by 45 - 38 percent they trust the president more than congressional Republicans to handle the economy, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

The country is in a recession, 71 percent of American voters say, but by 54 - 27 percent they blame former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.

The president gets a 47 - 46 percent job approval rating, unchanged from the June 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. That tops a 64 - 28 percent disapproval for Democrats in Congress and a 65 - 26 percent disapproval for Republicans. Obama outscores congressional Republicans on several points in the deficit reduction battle:
Voters will blame Republicans over Obama 48 - 34 percent if the debt limit is not raised;
Voters say 67 - 25 percent that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts;
Voters say 45 - 37 percent that Obama's proposals to raise revenues are "closing loopholes," rather than "tax hikes";
But voters say 57 - 30 percent that Obama's proposals will impact the middle class, not just the wealthy.
"The American people aren't very happy about their leaders, but President Barack Obama is viewed as the best of the worst, especially when it comes to the economy," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.

When Obama says "this could bring down my presidency" he means two things.

He can read the poll numbers. And I would wager they are even worse than are being published. If he's underwater in Fl, Ohio picks up steam due to Kasich and Pennsylvania is a struggle, what does this say? And if he's underwater, has no coattails, what do Senate dems do? They are already looking at fighting for more seats than the repubs. . . and if push comes to shove, guess who's going to spend all of his campaign cash, regardless if he is able to win or not? He surely isn't giving it to the DSSC or whatever. Even if he's declared the loser two weeks before the general election.

Second, it allows him to fall on his sword while maintaining he "held to his prnciples, election be damned." This provides him with an excuse for losing the election of "I held to my principles but lost so I'm still better than all of you" and he doesn't have to admit that it was his policies that caused his defeat. It was his "principled" stand. Martyr if your will. "He risked his career for America" headlines.

The markets may rally with a deficit deal. But people aren't going to start hiring. Gov't defaults and interest rates sky rocket, many small businesses can't get loans now. Paying no interest on a loan you don't have now, isn't going to change how much interest you pay later on a loan you can't get.

The state electricity grid operator is calling on Texans to conserve energy this afternoon as a nuclear plant outage and high temperatures cause tight supply.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas asked consumers on Thursday to cut back on electricity during the peak hours of 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

"We are expecting the statewide power supplies to be very tight over peak today, primarily due to the forecast for continued temperature extremes which causes higher than normal electricity use, and because of unexpected unit outages," said Kent Saathoff, vice president of grid operations and system planning.

He said if additional generation units go down, or electricity demand rises too high, ERCOT may have to begin emergency procedures. That involves shutting off customers in a systematic way to preserve the grid.

Also, Nuclear Regulator Commission spokesman Victor Drix said one of the reactor units at the Comanche Peak plant shut down for unplanned maintenance on Monday. He said he doesn't know when the unit will go back into service.

It sure doesn't take Negotiation 101 to figure out what the Prez really wants here:

Over the last several days the White House has been walking back the savings on the Biden number. Thursday it was $2 trillion, Monday it was $1.7-1.8 trillion, Tuesday it was $1.6-1.7-1.8 trillion. This morning our staff met with White House folks and the wrap up from that meeting said that the WH is now at $1.5 trillion

Jennifer Rubin who seems pretty plugged into the Hill, reports that the White House talks are effectively irrelevant now, and that there are discussions going on about what sort of modifications to the McConnell plan would be required to sell it to the House. Per Rubin, "In addition to Ryan, Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) is leaving the door open on the McConnell plan."

Sandy Levinson on the Largest Confiscation of Personal Property in American history.

So the "Constitutional crisis" would presumably be the achievement of ultimate dysfunctionality, i.e., the inability of the two Houses of Congress to agree on legislation that would allow the United States to get out of this mess. And the dysfunctionality would obviously be caused, at least in part, by our Constitution and its utter lack of recognition of the role that political parties would play in our political system (as Joey Fishkin noted). If this is in fact the case, then why doesn't Section 4 spring back into life as a genuinely attractive option? The President can go on television on July 30 (or whatever the practicaly last possible moment is) and say that he has been advised by (some of) his lawyers that the Constitution is indeed not a suicide pact and that Section 4 does in fact authorize him to take whatever steps are necessary to leave the national debt "unquestioned."

Why, for example, is that argument weaker than Lincoln's argument in the Emancipation Proclamation, which was one of the world's monumental takings of private property in the name of the war power? FDR, in his 1933 Inaugural address, said that we should treat the Great Depression as the equivalent of war and behave accordingly (even as he rejected calls, by Walter Lippmann among others) formally to claim dictatorial powers. Are Eric Cantor and his minions not engaged in a fundamental war against the American economy, and is it really the case, to return to a previous post, that the only response by the President is to accept Prof. Tribe's altogether cogent arguments and accept our being driven over the cliff? (Or, to stick with the war metaphor, he could engage in basically unconditional surrender to Cantor and say that the Democratic Party will simply withdraw from the scene.)"http://balkin.blogspot.com/

As someone who believes in checking out actual source material, googling up links for your remontant cut & pastes is becoming really tedious -- and particularly annoying when you could easily just copy/paste the url into your posts too.

If I am not mistaken, this appears to be a major loss for Obama. No tax increases demoralizes his base and his conduct and inability to swoop at the end and get a deal makes him look churlish and impotent.

Finally, the punditry class misread the politics. Obama needs the deal badly. He couldnt let the country default. As for assigning blame, he is running against a Replubican challenger for his job not against Boehner or Cantor or the House republicans. If he defaulted the challenger, maybe Romney
would he a field day picking him apart.

I suddenly remember why I started giving Sandy Levinson a pass, although using metaphorical civil war to invoke Lincolnesque depredations on the Constitution in the name of freeing a dysfunctional economy from the yoke of Eric Cantor and his minions is certainly inventive.

The magnitude of the blow to His Royal Lowness will only become apparent when the Speaker introduces the amount for the immediate cuts demanded by the Tea Party in order to accept that horrible, terrible McConnell plan. (My estimate is about $150 billion.)

Reid signaled yesterday that King Putts and the prog caucus are on their own. Hope they enjoy the fishhooks.

In 1985 Murdoch was made a citizen so he could buy MetroMedia. There is nothing I can find about how his fasttracking road to C. was accomplished. it is rumored it was by Senatorial edict promulgated by Reagan, who coincidentally, issued an executive order in 1987 to
eliminate the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine".

Is that better, JMH?

I`ll Become U.s. Citizen, Murdoch Tells Fcc
Move Would Clear Way For Purchase Of Tv Stations

The whole article is worth a read, just to see what can and does happen in Amerika these days to politically incorrect demonstrators. This pithy selection is from the judge's opinion, but be sure to read what these young girls were subjected to by "law enforcement":

“[A] reasonable police officer faced with the facts confronted by the Defendants would have known that, in ordering the demonstrators to leave Harford County, he would violate the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights,” the court ruled. “Moreover, arresting the Plaintiffs for exercising those rights was a violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. In engaging in this manifestly unlawful behavior, the individual officers could not have reasonably misapprehended the law, nor can it be said that they made a bad guess in a gray area.”

The Appeals Court dismissed an earlier appeal:

The appeals court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that material questions of fact were presented as to whether the police defendants acted in good faith. Indeed, plaintiffs already adduced compelling evidence of bad faith, including legally baseless arrests followed by failure to prosecute belated criminal charges, needless strip searches of fully peaceable, nonviolent demonstrators, and 911 tapes and police recordings. The recordings showed how police enforced a “heckler’s veto” (acting on phone calls objecting to the content of protest signs) in making the arrests, and showing deep police bias — with officers commenting “…they can sit in a cell for an hour … or three or four and rot.”

During the initial event, the pro-life people were arrested without warning by Harford County State Troopers during their multi-city protest featuring abortions signs. At least a dozen police officers arrived in more than seven marked vehicles.

They had started their peaceful pro-life event along a public road in Harford County but relocated to the town of Bel Air after being told by officers to leave the county for not having a county permit to engage in free speech activities. The officers then arrested them in Bel Air without explanation.

Once in custody, three young women among the group arrested–two of whom were teenagers–were subjected to two rounds of strip searches. Only after the strip searches and a night spent in jail were they told why they were arrested.

The first search took place in the police station parking lot in front of other males. A female officer pulled out the young ladies’ shirt collars to inspect their breasts before reaching down their pants to feel around their waistlines.

The Harford County Detention Center administered the second strip search after the pro-life participants were transferred there. A female officer took the women one by one into a bathroom with a partially open door and ordered them to lift up their shirts and brassieres. Officials cast the pro-life participants in leg irons, denied them permission to call parents until after midnight.

The SOB defendants "will proceed to a jury trial for the assessment of damages only." And I hope every jury member is a parent. Hey, just a normal human being.

--The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.--

So his idea of compromise is some nice big tax hikes and cutting defense to the bone, since that's about all that's left.
What he really meant to say the other day is "everybody else needs to eat their peas; I'll be having my cake and eating it too".

"They are already looking at fighting for more seats than the repubs. . . and if push comes to shove, guess who's going to spend all of his campaign cash, regardless if he is able to win or not?"

That sounds right to me. He'll condescend to appearances with other candidates here & there, while sucking up the financial & media oxygen for himself. The first thing Obama did when he became the official Dem nominee was to move party HQ to Chicago, and tell groups like moveon.org to quit raising money on their own and start telling their donor base to contribute directly to the DNC (A.K.A. Obama Inc.).

No Anduril: I would prefer he post the link and a paragraph or two of copy set off by blockquotes and end with a comment of his own as to why he thinks the link is right, wrong, worth considering, a load a crap, or whatever.